Search

The degree of economic inequality may lead to different environments where people develop motives and behaviours that lend them higher chances of survival. However, the specific features attributed to an environment with a particular level of economic inequality have received little research attention. In this research, we explored how perceived economic inequality may influence the values inferred as normative in society. Results from three studies, one correlational and two experimental, showed that perceived normative values change according to the degree of perceived economic inequality in a given context: higher levels of perceived economic inequality are related to normative self-enhancement values, whereas lower levels of perceived economic inequality are related to normative self-transcendence values. These results are discussed in terms of how information on economic inequality is used to build a general perception of the normative climate in society and, accordingly, of the values that would best guide behaviours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing economic inequality adversely affects groups with low socioeconomic status (low-SES). However, many people are opposed to wealth redistribution policies. In this context, we examined whether dehumanization of low-SES groups has a role in this opposition. In the first study (N = 303), opposition to wealth redistribution was related to denying human uniqueness (e.g., intelligence and rationality) and having negative attitudes toward low-SES groups, more than denying human nature (e.g., emotionality and capacity to suffer) to low-SES groups. Mediation analyses indicated that this effect occurred via blaming low-SES groups for their plight, after controlling for participants' SES and negative attitudes towards low-SES groups. In the second study (N = 220), manipulating the human uniqueness of a fictitious low-SES group affected support for wealth redistribution measures through blame. These results indicate that animalizing low-SES groups reduces support for wealth redistribution via blaming low-SES groups for their situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Members of dehumanized groups are somehow accepted in a variety of menial roles. Three studies verified when and why people might approach members of animalistically and mechanistically dehumanized groups. In Studies 1 and 2, participants showed a greater intention to interact with (Study 1) and attributed higher ratings of success (Study 2) to members of an animalistically dehumanized group in a social context. On the contrary, participants expected that members of a mechanistically dehumanized group would be more successful and were preferred to interact with in a professional context. In Study 3, the psychological process underlying these preferences was investigated. Interestingly, results showed that the objectification of dehumanized group members led participants to interact with them. Taken together these studies show that people approach dehumanized others not because they are liked, but because they are objectified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]